U.S. POpulation = 305,451,833

Status
Not open for further replies.
S

stmadeveloper

New member
Aug 30, 2007
1,687
36
0
Ok so there are just over 300 million people in the U.S. according to U.S. and World Population Clocks - POPClocks

Let's forget the bail out amounts, the war in Iraq, etc... all costing 100's of BILLIONS of dollars or even trillions.

For a change let's see some inflation that HELPS you out a bit. If you split 750 billion between 3 million people it's a tad over 2k in each persons pocket. Probably wouldn't fix the economy.

Let's just see who is an adult shall we?

20–64 years: 60.1% (male 89,881,041; female 90,813,578) (from wiki)

That's 180,694,619 - still not that big a chunk if you figure it's less than 5k per person (but getting better).

According to http://www.census.gov/prod/1/pop/p25-1129.pdf there are about 112,000,000 households in the U.S. I'm making the assumption that those households means "units or families" paying taxes. I could keep reading the document but what fun would that be?

If we gave each household 1 million dollars it would be:
112,000,000,000

So for 112 billion we could give each household in the U.S. one million dollars --- hmmmmmmmmm

(pretty sure my math is right - been drinking a bit )

Now I'm sure inflation would mess that up - but it seems cheaper than a bailout - and it would let all those "bad debts" be paid off. It would also not reward people who have been trading worthless money.
 


Yeah, for 112 billion, you could only afford to give each 1000 dollars.
 
stay in school, wickedfire.

i think it was russell crowe that got the 1mil-for-everyone idea rolling.
actually boils down to ~4000 for adults, which ain't too shabby of a stimulus.

slippery slope, though.

Alexander Tyler (a Scottish history professor at the University of Edinburgh) said:
A democracy is always temporary in nature; it simply cannot exist as a permanent form of government. A democracy will continue to exist up until the time that voters discover that they can vote themselves generous gifts from the public treasury. From that moment on, the majority always votes for the candidates who promise the most benefits from the public treasury, with the result that every democracy will finally collapse due to loose fiscal policy, [which is] always followed by a dictatorship.
Click to expand...

you don't want a dictatorship, do you?

...do you?

i didn't think so.

kwitcherbitchin and let the money stay with the banks.
they know what's best. really.
 
I'll help you out Ed

How about $63,523.02 tax credit for each company that adds a new employee that is currently unemployeed

so 180,649,619 (from above) * 6.1% [source] = 11,019,627 total unemployeed

11,019,627 new jobs * $63,523 = ~$700,000,000,000

Then unemployment pretty much goes away & the economy is kicking with the influx of money. People are also able to save their houses by paying their bills (bye-bye housing bubble). There are other residual benefits including increased productivity from US businesses thanks to an additional 11M workers & a BIG increase in the 2009 budget thanks to the additional tax revenue. Sadly Obama will blow that money in a hurry on new overhead projectors ... but the other benefits still stand firm.

--- erect for the save ---
 
nevele said:
kwitcherbitchin and let the money stay with the banks.
they know what's best. really.
Click to expand...

You had me until this part. You have heard of fractional lending haven't you? Banks do not have the country's best interest in mind. I don't want them touching any part of this bailout.
 
I like my math skills better - and they are more inline with the average congressmen apparently :)

Plus I want my Million :)

Like I said - I've been drinking for the past couple hours while kicking back watching the tube - sorta mad my math is off to tell you the truth.
 
erect said:
Banks do not have the country's best interest in mind. I don't want them touching any part of this bailout.
Click to expand...

natch.
please replace 'really' with 'honest injun' to correct vagueness in textual sarcasm above.
 
Stick with the per capita analysis. "Household" numbers are tricky because the number of family members in each household varies across time, regions in the US, and demographic groups. Also, "household" doesn't necessarily mean a taxpaying unit since some types of households are historically (since the 1960s) frequently mentioned as being prone to being on government assistance (e.g. female headed households, etc)
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom